Watching the live stream I thought he just whipped the scrum cap off, but looking at that clip again closely I have to say it looks like he touched the guy's temple and/or eye socket as he tried to adjust his grip on the cap and (irony) couldn't see what he was doing.
Obviously not going for the eyes on purpose but i think that will be a citing for 'area' contact unfortunately.

On top of taking no pts from the match that's not what we needed. Fingers crossed but Sink does have a bit of a reputation so we may not be seeing him for a while....

"Unequivocally, it was not a gouge. Absolutely not. Kyle said he made contact with [Michael] Paterson's head gear. He can't do that.

"There was a purge on it a couple of years ago because it's the sort of thing that cheeses people off, so leave headgear alone.

"I have to say, and I'm not here to cast dispersions, but my hooker [Dave Ward] has got a rather nasty eye and I know how it happened because he's told me and I believe him.

"I'm pretty disappointed about that and he's not happy about it."

If this is true, then there has to be serious questions and inquest in to why Luke pearce checked the sinckler incident and not the one for Ward, when both teams asked for it to be looked at and reviewed. I can take poor decisions, its part of any sport especially in a complicated one like rugby, but this is clear favouring one side. Foul play is foul play, whether it be a gouge or a punch to the eye; look what happened to ward's face compared to paterson's. What kingston is saying is quite alarming to me.

"Foul play is foul play, whether it be a gouge or a punch to the eye; look what happened to ward's face compared to paterson's." What kingston is saying is quite alarming to me"

I have to agree with you about alarming comments because reading his comments there is Kingston trying to imply that ward was punched and hence that's why his eye is like that because the action watching on tv just before he gained his injury didn't show any such claim?

Ward - no idea how he got his black eye, bad things do happen in the front row but clearly neither player nor coach is happy about it but seemingly not calling for action though I'm sure Dave will have made a note in his black book.

Sinckler - Looked pretty inconclusive to me but pulling off a scrum cap from the front is a risky manoeuvre. On the evidence we saw at the ground, Pearce got it right, penalty and no card. Notwithstanding what happens next week, your man was very wound up after the Tuala try about five minutes before, he is a bit of a live wire !

Close game for which Quins deserved some reward which they would have received but for a silly challenge at the death.

ArchQuinHealy & Dallaglio stick their damning opinions in so he will definitely get a long ban now &#129296;

Same people who thought that salvi flying into a ruck off his feet and leading with a combo of head and shoulder was unfortunate. "definitely no malice there". So they are now psychiatrists as well as pundits. Healey us actually decent but sadly dallaglio has always been a very good player but not a clever individual. Doubt the various substances he abused helped either

Honestly, that was my first reaction seeing the close up replay. Yes, fingers are near the eyes but I couldn't see any sign of "downward pressure" as it were. If the player felt those fingers near his eyes, then it might explain why he was so adamant he'd been gouged, but there were no marks on his face.

Kyle can be a bit hot headed, but I don't think a sneaky attack on someone's eyes is his style at all.

I don't think Kyle could see what he was doing. His arm was outstretched with his head on the other side of the ruck. When his hand was on the face it looked like he was still holding the scrum cap.

You'd think that if there had been any contact you'd see a mark, or some bruising or swelling. That might want to make a referee think some foul play had occurred. Maybe he'd want to review an incident if a player was showing bruising or swelling around a rapidly closing eye. Or maybe not.

No, it happens to be on twitter - itís video evidence of him making contact wth the face and possibly the eye being discussed by former rugby players on a rugby programme.

I hope he wasnít trying to gouge - because if so I donít want to see him in a Quins shirt for a long time. Either way - the rules donít require intention and even if itís jusr face not eye heís getting a ban.

As Chris Ashton would tell you. Lets see if Sinckler ends up with 10 weeks?

A week ago I was annoyed at Eddie Jones for leaving Sinckler out. Now regardless of whether he meant to do it or not Sinckler has given Jones further ammunition for the "Sinckler hot-headed" file. I think you want your front row to be a bit niggly but for cryng out loud if he wants a scrum-cap so badly (first Haskells now Pattersons) can't Quins just buy him one

The panel decided on a four week ban, based on a Twitter image. However this was then increased to 8 weeks because an internet forum poster named Scamble said he deserved a longer ban. It has yet to be confirmed whether this is long enough.

Scamble's right, of course. Sinckler may escape a ban because these things are inconsistent, but it looks bad for Kyle who did something unnecessary then followed it up by putting his hand back in the guy's face.

Jammy GitScamble's right, of course. Sinckler may escape a ban because these things are inconsistent, but it looks bad for Kyle who did something unnecessary then followed it up by putting his hand back in the guy's face.

I actually don't think he'll escape punishment. Stills are not 100% reliable due to camera angles etc. But Kyle has a bit of a reputation and when there is this much public outcry then it seems like someone has to be made an example of. Whether it's deserved or justified is another matter.

I've watched the various videos and seen the stills. I am trying to be objective and unbiased but I honestly can't see from these vids and stills whether he did anything which would actually constitute the old definition/understanding of gouging. I really hope he didn't, as it's indefensible.

He certainly has a case to answer for contact with / near the eye area. It was completely unnecessary and stupid to pull his headgear off, and can't see any reason for moving his hand back after he's already got the scrumcap.

I can't see how he can escape punishment for contact near the eye area, but from those videos and pics I really can't see anything which clearly shows anything worse than that. So while I'm sure he'll get some sort of ban, I'm not sure he deserves a long one.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Either way, it was stupid to pull the cap off in the first place given the fuss around Joe doing it before, and doing that always means you'll run the risk of having your hand somewhere where it could look very bad for you.

While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.

Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.

Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.

higgy365While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.

Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.

This is true. It does make you wonder whether they looked into the incident that caused Ward's eye injury. Clearly something made contact with his eye area!

higgy365While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.

Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.

They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.

DOKShould imagine the citing officer had a look to see if he could pin down the Dave Ward's eye incident.

I would hope so. D you think it would have made a difference if he'd remonstrated like the Saints player did? I may be mistaken, but after the Sinkler incident when the ref was explaining his actions, Ward seemed to be saying something like "What about my injury in the first half?"

higgy365While you make a distinction between gouging and contact with the eye / eye area, T Bone, they have effectively become interchangeable in contemporary discussions, certainly the press and social media.
Did KS set out to literally blind Paterson? No, I don't believe that for a second.

Did KS make contact with Patersons eye/eye area? I think so. The panel tomorrow will have more angles/pictures etc to help them make their determination. If they agree that he did a ban should follow.

Yes, I appreciate that there is no separate offence of gouging now, so it's hard to see how he's not guilty of the offence of making contact with the eye / eye area. Just pointing out, more in response to some of the rubbish I've seen on twitter and facebook than on here, that from what I've seen I genuinely don't think anyone could say with any certainty that he's done something truly unpleasant and poked someone's eyes. I realise that is not what the offence covers though.

At the time, as well as saying "well what about what happened to my eye" Ward was asking the ref to request a close up of Paterson's eyes to show that there were no marks.

They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.

Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.

Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.

This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?

Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.

There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).

On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.

Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?

They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.

Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.

Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.

This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?

Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.

There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).

On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.

Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?

To be honest, it's indefensible ... I'm not excusing a punch or whatever it was that caused Ward's eye injury, but gouging or even an attempt to do so is on a whole different level of nastiness and unfortunately, the close-ups are pretty damning ... I don't think Paterson was 'bleating'. I would have done if I were him.

There was no reason for him to go near the headgear, let lone the eyes and when the inevitable ban comes, it won't be undeserved. If even the second (most contentious) grab at the face was accidental, he deserves to be banned for pure stupidity.

I want our players to be tough. To take no nonsense. To be highly physical and dominate the game in every way.

I do not want our players to play dirty. I do not want our club to be tarnished with accusations of foul play.

The video/stills evidence does not look good. It would seem likely that, given the definitions above, Kyle will receive some form of ban. As also discussed above, he was stupid to have put himself in such a position and should have known better.

However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Kyle intended to purposefully hurt Paterson in this way he would have succeeded and the recipient would have been very badly injured. Thankfully this indisputably did not happen.

They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.

Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.

Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.

This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?

Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.

There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).

On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.

Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?

To be honest, it's indefensible ... I'm not excusing a punch or whatever it was that caused Ward's eye injury, but gouging or even an attempt to do so is on a whole different level of nastiness and unfortunately, the close-ups are pretty damning ... I don't think Paterson was 'bleating'. I would have done if I were him.

There was no reason for him to go near the headgear, let lone the eyes and when the inevitable ban comes, it won't be undeserved. If even the second (most contentious) grab at the face was accidental, he deserves to be banned for pure stupidity.

The tone of your post suggests tat you believe that gouging or an attempt to gouge actually took place which is a big step away from having hands in the area of the eyes.

Dogger_I want our players to be tough. To take no nonsense. To be highly physical and dominate the game in every way.
I do not want our players to play dirty. I do not want our club to be tarnished with accusations of foul play.

The video/stills evidence does not look good. It would seem likely that, given the definitions above, Kyle will receive some form of ban. As also discussed above, he was stupid to have put himself in such a position and should have known better.

However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Kyle intended to purposefully hurt Paterson in this way he would have succeeded and the recipient would have been very badly injured. Thankfully this indisputably did not happen.

21:00 as I type, still no news, I assume we'll get it announced tomorrow maybe.

My opinion, he did wrong, and has to accept any punishment given, and hopefully learn from it. Others have done it, and unfortunately will continue, and won't always be seen or reported, but this time it was, it's on camera.

I enjoy cheering on Kyle from the stands, and the other players, and will continue to do so, even when he returns.

They're not going to have any more angles than BT or anyone else -- there aren't secret cameras that the broadcasters aren't allowed to use.

Of course not. But there may well be shots that were not shown at the time. Wouldn't be the first time.

Whether that helps or hinders Sincklers position will all come out in the wash.

This is also an interesting conundrum - if no new evidence come to light, and the officials on the day ruled that there was nothing conclusive, could Kyle still be banned?

Yes, Chris Ashton was banned even after the referee and TMO studied the incident long and hard for many minutes afterwards and decided nothing was untoward.

There is no doubt at all that lawyers who have never played the game are infinitely better qualified to make these decisions that experienced international referees (Jerome Garces in this particular case).

On a more serious note it does seem that "manning up" like Ward did gets you nowhere, and that bleating to the referee does. In the Ashton incident you would have thought Luke Marshall's head had come off as opposed to the light stroking of his cheek that actually occurred. Still the cheek is somewhere near the eye and that did for Ashton.

Of course the fact that England internationals are on the horizon could also work in Sinkler's favour. Remember Martin Johnson and some of his conveniently-timed "bans"?

To be honest, it's indefensible ... I'm not excusing a punch or whatever it was that caused Ward's eye injury, but gouging or even an attempt to do so is on a whole different level of nastiness and unfortunately, the close-ups are pretty damning ... I don't think Paterson was 'bleating'. I would have done if I were him.

There was no reason for him to go near the headgear, let lone the eyes and when the inevitable ban comes, it won't be undeserved. If even the second (most contentious) grab at the face was accidental, he deserves to be banned for pure stupidity.

The tone of your post suggests tat you believe that gouging or an attempt to gouge actually took place which is a big step away from having hands in the area of the eyes.

Not really. I hope he didn't do it deliberately, but I do think the second go after the headgear was ripped off needs a very good explanation.

I guess my reaction was more at the suggestion that Paterson 'bleating' when the guy clearly thought there was an attempted gouge.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net